Jonathan Edwards and Justification
160
Jonathan Edwards and Justification
160Paperback
-
SHIP THIS ITEMIn stock. Ships in 1-2 days.PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781433532931 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Crossway |
| Publication date: | 07/31/2012 |
| Pages: | 160 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.40(w) x 8.40(h) x 0.50(d) |
About the Author
Samuel T. Logan Jr. (PhD, Emory University) is professor emeritus of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he served as president from 1991 to 2005. He is currently the associate international director of the World Reformed Fellowship, having served as the international director from 2005 to 2015. He is an ordained minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and earned a BA from Princeton University, an MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD in theology and literature from Emory University. He is married to Susan and has two sons and two grandsons.
Kyle Strobel (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is assistant professor of spiritual theology at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He has served as a fellow at Yale’s Jonathan Edwards Center, has published several academic reviews of works related to Edwards, and has taught graduate courses on Edwards’s spirituality theology. Kyle lives in Fullerton, California, with his wife, Kelli, and their two children.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Edwards and Justification Today
Josh Moody
There has been considerable discussion about Edwards's view of justification in recent years. There has also been a feisty series of interactions about the doctrine of justification itself in contemporary theology. The interplay of the two is not by happenstance, of course, as Edwards (often claimed to be the greatest American theologian) is a bit like Michael Jordan: if you can get him on your side, you have a better chance of winning, or at least of slam dunking on your theological opponent.
The reason why justification is a hot-button issue is essentially straightforward. Justification has been the defining doctrine of Protestantism ever since the Reformation of the sixteenth century, so anyone who wants to redefine Protestantism or the Reformation must tackle this particular doctrine. But the reason why justification has today become a matter of debate is a little more complex. For some, apparently, it needs to be discussed in order to make significant progress in Protestant/Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue (and if progress in such dialogue is not what you want, then the doctrine needs to be underlined and kept entrenched). For others the notion of "justification by faith alone," as traditionally formulated, has become unwarranted due to some technical work on the background of the New Testament, especially by E. P. Sanders. Then into the fray comes the general feeling that much of at least Western Protestantism has become a little superficial, and there seems an implicit agenda in some of the discussion to find room for "works" within Protestant thinking and thereby into Protestant living.
And no doubt there are other rationales, streams of discussion, and various forms of argumentation. The doctrine of justification more generally is discussed today in the works of James Dunn and N. T. Wright, among others. Those who are counterarguing for a more traditional position are rarely found in exalted academic ivory towers, except for Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University. Specifically within Edwards studies, the discussions are found in Thomas A. Schafer's article in Church History, Anri Morimoto's book, George Hunsinger's writings, some parts of McDermott's monograph, and, arguing the more conservative position, Samuel T. Logan Jr.'s article. If academic debates were won by sheer weight of numbers, then those who argue that Edwards basically takes a traditional view of justification would be in trouble.
Edwards's doctrine of justification is articulated in three areas of his work: his quaestio MA thesis essay, his Justification by Faith Alone lectures of 1735, and various entries in his "Miscellanies" unpublished writings. This book will examine each of these areas and determine what exactly was Edwards's doctrine of justification, to what extent was it traditional Reformation thought, and whether the form of the doctrine that Edwards expressed has any relevance to contemporary discussions about justification. This chapter will give an overview of Edwards and justification today. Each of the succeeding chapters will analyze in detail the different areas where Edwards articulates his understanding of justification, taking the form of text and commentary upon the text.
I argue that Edwards's view of justification is relevant today because it articulates the Protestant Reformation view of justification in a way that addresses some of the contemporary questions that are posed to that view. I will first look at Edwards's view of justification, then more briefly at the Reformation Protestant view of justification, and finally at how Edwards's view of justification addresses some of the contemporary questions about justification.
Edwards's View of Justification
Jonathan Edwards has long been recognized as a creative mind, and his formulation of the doctrine of justification is no exception. The crucial issue, however, is whether Edwards's view of justification is creative in form but essentially traditional in content, or whether Edwards's view of justification is creative at both levels. Is Edwards saying something novel (that is "new"), or is he saying something in a novel way? There is a world of difference between the two possibilities, and no reason logically to assume that just because Edwards is at least saying something in a new way, he must therefore be saying something new. There is a kind of specious, uneducated cant that is suspicious of anything novel, lest it not be "what was always said." I trust we can all avoid that sort of ancestor worship. And there is a kind of immaturity that looks for the letter not the spirit of an idea, and that once it finds a slightly different formulation believes that the essence has changed. Ironically, of course, the reverse can be true. One can find someone who has a "justification by faith alone" bumper sticker, and talks of imputation of righteousness, propitiation, and all the rest, but actually behind the apparently old-fashioned formulations holds to a completely new set of ideas. What we are looking for here is the spirit of what Edwards is saying, not the letter. We will certainly look at the "letter," the details, but what we need to understand is the message that is being communicated, or to use Edwardsian terminology, we are looking for the idea.
A word about bias: personally, I hold to a rather traditional view of justification by faith alone, though I hope I am able to express it in some interesting, perhaps even at times novel, ways. But I am not committed to finding that Edwards agrees with me. I do not agree with Edwards about everything, perhaps particularly his fascinating eschatology, or his rather invigorating semi-idealist metaphysics. I come to my own views for my own reasons, and without doubt have long found Edwards a helpful sparring partner in the matter of working out the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. But he is not my master, and my world will not be shaken if I find that Edwards really was a crypto –Roman Catholic. I will say this though: those who argue that Edwards's view of justification inches him toward a Catholic view of justification are the ones who have to do all the legwork. After all at a basic commonsense level it is intrinsically unlikely that Edwards was a pseudo-Roman Catholic. He was, let's remember, an eighteenth-century Puritan in New England who, perhaps more than anyone in world history, did not usually have to defend himself against charges of "going over to Rome." Still, you never know. And I've come to this discussion with an open mind.
Discussions about Edwards's teaching on justification focus primarily on three areas, namely his use of the word "infusion," his understanding of the order of salvation, and his discussion about faith and love. We'll consider each of these in turn.
Edwards's Use of the Word "Infusion"
The word "infusion" stands out because it is used in Roman Catholic theology to explain a theory of how grace works that is different from the Protestant theory of how grace works. But does Edwards use the word in a Roman Catholic (or semi–Roman Catholic) way, or does he invest in it some meaning of his own? A third alternative is that he uses it in a non–Roman Catholic way but a thoroughly traditional Protestant way. Oh the vagaries of theological lexicography! If I wanted to be really devilish, I might suggest that he could also have been using a knowingly Roman Catholic word without intending to import into it our particular ecumenical sensitivities. Protestants do use Roman Catholic words frequently ("Trinity," "salvation," etc.) without necessarily meaning them in Roman Catholic ways, or use them in Roman Catholic ways, but only when they overlap happily with Protestant meaning (such as the word "Trinity"). If the word "infused" always meant something irreducibly Roman Catholic, then spotting it in Edwards's writings would certainly set the Protestant scholastics' nerves tingling. But I don't see any reason why it should, and in fact, on closer observation, it does not. This is not like finding Edwards talking approvingly about purgatory, for instance.
Actually, when Edwards uses "infusion," he is talking about regeneration (to use another theological term). He sometimes uses the language of "infusion" in his "Miscellanies"— his unpublished notebooks — when he is discussing how ridiculous he thinks it is to deny that the Holy Spirit can actually come in and change someone's life. Edwards is not attempting an ecumenical dialogue on the topic of justification in any of these "Miscellanies" that I can see (unsurprisingly for someone writing before Vatican II and certainly before Evangelicals and Catholics Together). He is trying intellectually to browbeat the deists of the eighteenth century who wanted their cake and to be able to eat it too; they wanted to have God and rationalism, no miracles, nothing so "weird" as being born again, or grace coming into your life. Edwards talks in fairly repetitive terms throughout his "Miscellanies" about how absurd it is to say that God can do something in your life but that the Holy Spirit cannot be "infused" (or cause regeneration). A few examples should make this obvious:
Those that deny infusion by the Holy Spirit, must of necessity deny the Spirit to do anything at all. "By the Spirit's infusing" is an unintelligible expression; but however, let be meant what will, those that say there is no infusion contradict themselves. For they say the Spirit doth something in the soul; that is, he causeth some motion, or affection, or apprehension to be in the soul, that at the same time would not be there without him. Now I hope, that God's Spirit doth he doth; he doth so much as he doth, or he causeth in the soul so much as he causeth, let that be how little soever. So much as is purely the effect of his immediate motion, that is the effect of his immediate motion, let that be what it will; and so much is infused, how little soever that be. This is self-evident.
Edwards is arguing against "those." Who are these people? We, of course, do not know for sure, but almost certainly they are some mixture of those eighteenth-century New England bugbears, Arminians and/or deists. Surely they are not Reformation Protestants who deny "infusion" in the sense that justification is a declaration of righteousness, not an infusion of righteousness. Note that Edwards nowhere here mentions justification.
To say that a man who has no true virtue and no true grace can acquire it by frequent exercises of [it], is as much a contradiction as to say a man acts grace when he has no grace, or that he has it [when] he has it not. For tell me [how] a man that has no true grace within him shall begin to exercise it: before he begins to exercise it, he must have some of it. How shall [he] act virtuously the first time? How came he by that virtue which he then acted? Certainly not [by] exercise of virtue, for it supposes that he never acted virtuously before, and therefore could not get it by acting of it before.
This is a similar point. Edwards is saying that morality or virtue cannot take place simply by trying hard or developing habits. For there to be an exercise of grace there needs to be grace. Again, no discussion of justification (incidentally, it is common to use "grace" in Puritan and Reformation writings in a wider sense than solely justification).
And in case any wonder whether I am making up the idea that Edwards's use of "infusion" equates to what we more normally discuss under the heading of "regeneration," or that I'm just substituting a term used by Edwards for a term that I might feel more comfortable with, consider two "Miscellanies" on the subject of infusion. First,
And seeing it is thus, how analogous hereto is it to suppose that however God has left meaner gifts, qualifications and attainments in some measure in the hands of second causes, that yet true virtue and holiness, which is the highest and most noble of all the qualifications gifts and attainments of the reasonable creature, and is the crown and glory of the human, and that by which he is nearest to God and does partake of his image and nature, and is the highest beauty and glory of the whole creation, and is as it were the life and soul of the soul, that is given in the new creation or new birth, should be what God don't leave to the power of second causes, or honor any arm of flesh or created power or faculty to be the proper instrument of, but that he should reserve it in his own hands to be imparted more immediately by himself, in the efficacious operation of his own Spirit.
By "infused grace" Edwards means, he says, what "is given in the new creation or new birth." I am not sure it could be much clearer than that.
Second, in "Miscellanies" 1028 on the same topic, where as typical for his later "Miscellanies" he quotes from various authors and there is less of Edwards's own thoughts on the matter, the author he is reading about "infused grace" is, "These things above are taken from Dr. Doddridge, On Regeneration, Sermon 7."
I am tempted to say QED in terms of infusion. But one last point may help: in none of the "Miscellanies" on infusion is justification mentioned. And, out of 1,359 notes or "Miscellanies" on various topics, plus two scales of "Miscellanies" from A–Z (the second time with the notation of "aa," etc.), Edwards wrote eight "Miscellanies" on the subject of infusion. I find this hard to square with Thomas Schafer's confident comment with relation to the "Miscellanies" that, "The conception of regenerating and sanctifying grace as an infusion of new habits and principles is prominent in Edwards's writings on the subject." It is a rate of 0.5 percent on infusion in the "Miscellanies," which is not what I would call prominent.
Edwards does have some interesting things to say under the topic of justification itself about obedience, but we will turn to that when we consider the general matter of what Edwards called "evangelical obedience."
For now, let us turn to another common discussion concerning Edwards's view of justification: his understanding of the order of salvation.
Edwards's Understanding of the Order of Salvation
If you were to write an Idiot's Guide on the distinction between Roman Catholic theology and Protestant theology regarding the matter of the order of salvation, and you were a Protestant, you would simply say that Protestants believe that justification precedes sanctification while Roman Catholics have it the other way around. There's a lot of truth in that statement, even if it would be a summary worthy of the popular "Idiot's Guide" series. Given that common distinction, then, when people read various statements in Edwards that indicate he believes that God is at work in a sinner's life before he savingly believes and is justified, some understandably leap to the conclusion that Edwards thereby is overturning this common distinction in terms of the order of salvation.
For instance, Perry Miller, in his seminal biography of Edwards that kick-started much of the modern fascination with Edwards as a towering intellectual giant, noticed this since-frequently-commented-upon phrase in Edwards's Justification by Faith Alone lectures: "What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal."
What does Edwards mean by this phrase? Various possibilities present themselves. Edwards could mean that he thinks that sanctification precedes justification. From the wording of that phrase alone, without paying any attention to the context, both historical and in the actual argument of the lectures themselves, that is a possible interpretation of the phrase. But is it likely? For various reasons we have already suggested — that Edwards was famed as a defender of Reformed orthodoxy, arguing against Arminians, and that there wasn't a Roman Catholic in sight in the heart of Puritan New England as a viable theological opponent — it seems superficially unlikely. But it is possible if we simply take the words themselves without considering their context.
However, if we consider Edwards's words in context, then that interpretation is impossible. The following is a long quotation, but if we want to understand Edwards's view of the "order of salvation," we need to read the context of the phrase that Miller highlighted:
God don't give those that believe, an union with, or an interest in the Savior, in reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul's active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it fit, that in order to an union's being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act, and choice; and hence sees it fit that they only, that are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law: what is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge: and if there is any act, or qualification in believers, that is of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account that the Judge should look upon 'em, and accept 'em as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one, for the other, as if it were their satisfaction and merits: it necessarily follows, or rather is implied.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Jonathan Edwards and Justification"
by .
Copyright © 2012 Josh Moody.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Editor's Preface 9
Introduction Josh Moody 11
1 Edwards and Justification Today Josh Moody 17
2 By Word and Spirit: Jonathan Edwards on Redemption, Justification, and Regeneration Kyle Strobel 45
3 The Gospel of Justification and Edwards's Social Vision Rhys Bezzant 71
4 Justification and Evangelical Obedience Samuel T. Logan Jr. 95
5 Justification by Faith Alone? A Fuller Picture of Edwards's Doctrine Douglas A. Sweeney 129
Index 155
What People are Saying About This
“This superb collection of essays provides insight and guidance not only for understanding the thought of Jonathan Edwards in his historical context, but for wrestling with the current debate regarding the doctrine of justification by faith. This volume will prove to be richly rewarding, theologically engaging, and spiritually edifying for students and scholars alike. Josh Moody is to be commended for bringing together this outstanding group of scholars for such a timely and thoughtful exploration of this important subject. I highly recommend this book.”
—David S. Dockery, President, Trinity International University
“In 1734, at the beginning of the Connecticut Valley revival that ushered in the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards preached on the controversial doctrine of justification. Critics found ‘great fault’ with him for ‘meddling’ with it, and he ‘was ridiculed by many elsewhere.’ So today, those who engage in discussions about the nature of justification may find themselves the objects of criticism and ridicule, but the subject is a vital one, precisely because it has been and remains divisive. And it is particularly important in understanding Edwards, because his view on justification has been hotly debated. This volume combines informed historical context and contemporary appropriation, with the aim of considering Edwards ‘responsibly and correctly.’ What emerges is a balanced assessment of Edwards as an orthodox thinker, yet one with ‘creativity, spice, and derring-do.’”
—Kenneth P. Minkema, Executive Editor and Director, Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University
“A significant work that advances the growing scholarship on Jonathan Edwards and contributes to the current debates on justification. These lucid essays demonstrate that the great biblical and Reformation teaching on justification is not a stale, dusty doctrine, but has ramifications for the vitality of the Church and the reform of society.”
—Dennis P. Hollinger, President & Colman M Mockler Distinguished Professor of Christian Ethics, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary